Talk:Architecture of Leeds/GA3

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Review
Overall this article has the qualities to be a good article eventually, but I feel it still needs some more work before it can qualify for a good article. I have listed my thoughts below. Please reply on my talk page if you disagree.


 * 1. Well written?: Fail
 * Have a look at the image layout...see Manual of Style, which says "You should always be watchful not to overwhelm an article with images by adding more just because you can" and "Images should ideally be spread evenly within the article"...another piece od advice is "Do not place left-aligned images directly below a subsection-level heading (=== or lower), as this sometimes disconnects the heading from the text that follows it. This can often be avoided by shifting left-aligned images down a paragraph or two22 from Manual of Style
 * Pardon me, but this is nonsense! You have failed this as being poorly written and then cited only matters of layout. Yes, there are problems with the writing style. It is circuitous and often makes statements that are back-to-front. But the above justification for a Fail on the strength of writing fails to make the relevant point! Amandajm (talk) 12:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 2. Factually accurate?: Fail
 * "The name "Headingley Castle" is misleading as there is no evidence of there having been a castle in Headingley before the Victorian gothic building of that name...", however the reference says "Headingley Castle is visible on the left just behind the hotel." Nothing in the reference indicates that a castle did or did not exist in Headingley before the Victorian gothic building of that name.


 * 3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Fail

The article is generally good, however it does need to be checked and some sentences rewritten. Have a look at these sentences for example...
 * "...while, like most northern industrial cities, its best examples are probably Victorian"...References needed
 * "Kirkstall Abbey is probably the most famous piece of architecture from this period"..who says it is famous?
 * "Leeds had become a reasonably sized market town"...what size?
 * "As in much of the UK, Leeds' housing stock had fallen into disrepair by the middle of the twentieth century. The city was overcrowded, and the Victorian terraces were unsuitable for modern inhabitation."...how many people per sqaue kilomtre is overcowded? Who said that the Victorian terraces were unsuitable?
 * "The older houses relied mainly on heating from open coal fires, which lead to problems with smog"...again facts would be useful here.
 * "Certain estates in Leeds have suffered from high crime and poverty and thus had low house prices (such as Seacroft, Gipton, Belle Isle and Halton Moor), while others have maintained a lower crime rate and enjoy buoyant house prices (such as Moor Grange, the Lincombe estate in Gledhow, Ireland Wood, Holt Park and Tinshill)."...references need. See Verifiability

TIP...Neutral point of view is always worth looking for any editor, including myself.
 * No, this TIP fails on editorial style. Only "I" can look for "myself". Others, ("you", for example) must look for "me". I am referring to a matter of grammar, not to myself. It is the frequent and misplaced use of "myself" that is the problem! Amandajm (talk) 12:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

...PS is a dead link.


 * 5. Article stability? Pass
 * 6. Images?: Pass

Good progress made, but still a little more work required. Have another look at Buildings and architecture of Bristol for tips/ideas in how to improve this article. Best of luck, and keep me informed how things are going. Seth Whales (talk) 22:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the following points

"...while, like most northern industrial cities, its best examples are probably Victorian"...References needed

What sort of reference would be suitable for this. It would be hard to find anything as it is a fairly vaugue, uncitable but none the less relevent comment. Perhaps it could be better written using a phrase like 'most noteworthy' rather then 'best'. It would still be hard to cite. Using a phrase such as notworthy, no one could deny the pertinance and reliability of such a statement (nearly all of Leeds' landmarks are from this era). While anyone from Leeds could testify this, I would find it hard to substantite it with one single verification. Who's word would be suitable for such. Comment?

"Kirkstall Abbey is probably the most famous piece of architecture from this period"..who says it is famous?

Maybe a better word could be used then famous. But the phrase said most famous, however it is probably the only widely known building in Leeds from this era. Again would it be suitable to use a less commital statement such as 'most noteworthy' or 'most widely known' without the inclusion of a citation.?

"Leeds had become a reasonably sized market town"...what size?

Agree, that statement could be backed up with better information. I shall look into that probably tommorow.

"As in much of the UK, Leeds' housing stock had fallen into disrepair by the middle of the twentieth century. The city was overcrowded, and the Victorian terraces were unsuitable for modern inhabitation."...how many people per sqaue kilomtre is overcowded? Who said that the Victorian terraces were unsuitable?

I shall attempt to find out people per square mile. Again this statement, while fairly generalised and non commital, giving only a broad view of the situation would be hard to accuratly cite using conventional citations. Who's word on this would be suitable. I wrote this broadly from my own knowledge. The terraced houses (which were mostly back to back) were unsuitable for several reasons, many had outdoor (often communal) toilets, lacked fitted kitchens, modern heating systems and used back boilers and such for hot water (if they had such a system at all). I know it is all reletive, but most people exected better in the post war years (homes fit for heros, riding on the back of Clement Atlee and all that sort of sentiment). I could explain the above reasons in the text but I would probably find it difficult to cite.

"The older houses relied mainly on heating from open coal fires, which lead to problems with smog"...again facts would be useful here.

I'll have a look at this one, and try find evidence and further information.

"Certain estates in Leeds have suffered from high crime and poverty and thus had low house prices (such as Seacroft, Gipton, Belle Isle and Halton Moor), while others have maintained a lower crime rate and enjoy buoyant house prices (such as Moor Grange, the Lincombe estate in Gledhow, Ireland Wood, Holt Park and Tinshill)."...references need. See Wikipedia:Verifiability

For anyone who lives in Leeds this is self-evident. The only way of citing this would surely to input crime rates (posible to do by council ward but not by estate, but it would give a fair impression). House prices though would be more difficult. Look in estate agents windows and on the web and you can see this. And while I could use this as evidence, the websites constantly change as properties move, meaning the citation would have to be updated indefinitely. Is anyone aware of such stats, I'll have a look. Any ideas anyone?

Thank You for your time in reviewing this article. Mtaylor848 (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Wetherby Bridge
There is a statement which I have removed: "actually three bridges". What on earth does this mean? Does it mean that there are three parallel structures? Or does it mean that there are three main arches of which the supporting structures stand on a midstream rock? Or does it mean that the river is divided into three distinct courses, each with a separate non-linked bridge? I have never seen the bridge in question, but pictures seem to indicate that there is one bridge of several arches and not three bridges. Amandajm (talk) 12:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The three bridges sentence may be slightly missleading. It is true to say that there are three bridges, however they are built parallel with each other ajoining one another. They are all of different age and effectively widened the bridge each time one was added on. You can only really gauge this by walking under the bridge and studying the heights and stone work of each part of the arch. I shall change the text. Mtaylor848 (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)